www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Saddam Hussein: Guilty

Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death. He will be executed by hanging within 30 days. He does have the right to appeal within the 30 days.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15567363/

ok all i have to say about that is he is getting what he deserves all though i might be more comfterable if he was in usa custody

Lord, have mercy. I guess all that we can do now is pray that Saddam will be illuminated by the light of God's mercy sometime within the next month (or however long the appeal process drags on...) and that Iraq doesn't descend into all-out civil war.

Hanging Saddam Hussein will only exacerbate tensions and increase violence in a country that is already spinning deeper and deeper out of control. Last year 9122 people died violently in Iraq, this year, with nearly 2 months to go, the figure is already at 15.938.

Actually, I disagree. Keeping Saddam Hussein alive will make him a constant threat to the Iraqi people. This includes the threat of either directing attacks against Iraqis from his cell or having innocents kidnapped with the ransom demands for his release.

All of this falls within the moral parameters of the Gospel of Life written by Pope John Paul II. The Iraqi people cannot reasonably protect themselves from this monster (and the demons who do his bidding) while he is still alive.

While I do not rejoice in the death of another human being, I believe justice for him will be accomplished in 30 days. May God have mercy on his soul and on the Iraqi people.

This sort of logic, which I believe to be in opposition both to the words of the Lord himself ("Let the one without sin cast the first stone"), as well as to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, could not only be used to justify the execution of Hussein, but virtually any criminal who is also a public figure. Furthermore, it could be twisted to justify assasination of those who are currently in office.

People do have every right to protect themselves from vicious, murderous dictators...and that includes making sure that they are powerless to kill again by killing them. Your application of the passage about the woman caught in adultery to the question of the death penalty for an unrepentant murderous dictator who remains a threat to his people is a bit of a stretch.

Allowances are made in the CCC for the protection of society, and I believe this is a matter that falls within the parameters set out by the Catechism.

Assasination is an interesting question. Setting aside his anguished ethical reasoning, was Bonhoeffer justified in his participation in the assasination attempt on Adolf Hitler?

I would argue in those circumstances, "yes". But that does not justify all political assasinations. It is a matter of legitimate self-defense, not accomplishing a purely political objective. As far as political assasination, we Byzantines certainly have a colorful history in that regard.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ebed melech:

Your application of the passage about the woman caught in adultery to the question of the death penalty for an unrepentant murderous dictator who remains a threat to his people is a bit of a stretch.


I don't believe it to be "a bit of a stretch" at all. Jesus was approached by those who were seeking to justify themselves over against someone whose sin was quite obvious and whose sin was one for which the death penalty was required under the levitical law-just as the sin of murder required the imposition of the death penalty under the levitical law. Furthermore, when viewed together with the whole of what Holy Scripture has to say about sin, judgment, and hypocrisy, I think there's a lesson for us to learn here. Jesus taught that it in passing judgment on others, we show ourselves to be guilty. Also, 1 John 3:15 states, "Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Shall we now have the death penalty for those who are guilty of the sin of hate? After all, Holy Scripture suggests that hatred and murder are equivalent. I prefer that if we are going to risk the possibility of making a mistake, that we err on the side of mercy, rather than on the side of judgment.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Of course, this is a matter about which we must just simply agree to disagree. Nothing in any of the commandments precludes anyone from engaging in legitimate self-defense. I see this as an act of both justice and self-defense.

And let us not assume that one needs to hate Saddam in order to put him to death. Just ask the forgiving Poles, who, in their bold witness of charity to their enemies, were quite gracious to the Nazis on death row.

As to passing judgement, by your argument, we should eliminate the whole judicial system entirely. After all, we cannot judge! And as to the death penalty, I think that I am on pretty safe and logically consistent grounds in saying that Jesus is speaking spiritually when He refers to those who hate others as "murderers". (Don't look for doornobs or hinges on Jesus when He refers to Himself as the "door" either.) Murder qua murder is a capital crime in society and when it involves mass murder committed by a sociopathic murderous dictator who remains a threat to his people, society can legitimately protect itself by putting him to death.

I would add that Cardinal Renato Martino, who is President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has spoken out against the imposition of the death penalty on Saddam Hussein.

Ryan,

Do you have a quote? I would like to hear his rationale.

Thanks,

Gordo

Gordo:
You might check out these links.
Peace,
Ryan

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/11/06/europe/EU_GEN_Saddam_Verdict_World_View.php

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/ne..._0_India-275070-1.xml&archived=False

I would also add that Pope John Paul II tended strongly towards the idea that in contemporary society, the conditions that would justify the use of capital punishment are "practically non-existent," given the ability of contemporary states to imprison a criminal for life and render the criminal harmless to others. Here is a quote from the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church."

405. The Church sees as a sign of hope "a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of 'legitimate defence' on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform".[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty "when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor".[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as "they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender "are very rare, if not practically non-existent".[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.
[833] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 27: AAS 87 (1995), 432.
[834] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267.
[836] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 56: AAS 87 (1995), 464; cf. also John Paul II, Message for the 2001 World Day of Peace, 19: AAS 93 (2001), 244, where recourse to the death penalty is described as "unnecessary".

This is not the case at all. Passing judgment is something we cannot fail to do. It is necessary to pass judgement in order to function as a society and even as an individual within that society. Jesus was not telling us that judging is immoral. He was making it clear that "you will be judged with the judgement with which you judge." In other words, he was exposing the Pharisees as hypocrits. Their judgement was not just. It was hypocritical because they were guilty of the very sin the woman was accused of yet they presented themselves as pure.

When Jesus said "Let him among you who is without sin cast the first stone" he was saying "let him who is among you without THIS SIN cast the first stone." The pharisees were liars, murderers, thieves, and adulterers. Not just in the heart but in actuality. They were wicked men parading as holy and righteous and *THIS* is what Jesus was exposing. Not some moral lesson that its wrong to judge.

Why then did not Jesus himself condemn the woman since Jesus was certainly innocent of that crime? Two things. First of all, Jesus came to us as a man, born of woman, born under the law. He was himself submissive to the law. In other words he was not in a position of legal authority. If he had cast a stone at the woman he would have violated his own position as a man under law. He had no earthly authority to pass a legal judgment against her. Secondly, we are in fact talking about *legal* authority and *crimes*; not particularly sins. The Torah never condemns a person to death for their sins but for their crimes. This is an important distinction. It is for this reason that the Torah cannot be considered a law-code. It does not consistently assign punishments to disobedience. It must be remembered that Israel was originally a Theocracy: Government by the Deity. And Israels state laws reflected this. To disobey the law was to sin because the law was from God but sin was not of the essence of violating the law. What I mean is, there were some laws which were/are inviolable such as "thou shalt not kill" "thou shalt not commit adultery" etc. WHile others were temporary in nature such as "do not boil a kid in its mothers milk" or "if you are passing though a field and find a birds nest with young in it, you may take and kill the young but you must allow the mother to live". These laws are, in the eternal scheme of things, crimes but not sins. Just as today we have many crimes on the books that are not immoral. There is nothing immoral about going over the speed limit, necessarily. Nevertheless, the secular powers that be can and will punish/fine you for a violation of that law. Yet you need not confess it to your priest nor to God. Its not a sin.

In the woman caught in adultery example, the Pharisees were attempting to goad Jesus into saying the woman should die and if possible, actually get him to make it happen. Why? So that they could get him in trouble with the Roman authorities. They had no understanding of the distinction between crime and sin. Jesus did not come to punish crime but to forgive sin. He was concerned about the womans soul while the pharisees appeared to be only concerned about her violation of the law and cared not a a whit about her spiritual condition as a sinner.

My 2 cents.

Jason

Moreover, the injunction to execute a murderer predates the 10 commandments. It was a command given to Noah. "If any man spills a mans blood, by man shall his blood be spilt."

if he was in u.s juristdiction he would be dead already and i agree with ebed he needs to be put to death