A life for a life

[Illmatic15]

I’m confused as to how much I should support the death penalty (let alone if I should support it at all). I believe that I’ve read the standard Church teaching is that the death penalty should only be used as last resort to protect society, but that it’s otherwise permissible for Catholics to support capital punishment within reasonable limits or to not support it at all. So, in relation to capital punishment, where does life for a life stand? Specifically I’m speaking about Genesis 9:6, where the death penalty is required for murder (and I distinguish this from the same command in Exodus, which would only be directed at the Israelites, while the command in Genesis is for all mankind). Christ told us to turn the other cheek and forgive, but he also said that not one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law. So what is your opinion on this? Should we execute every person who has been proven guilty of murder, should we only do so if they are a danger to the community, or should capital punishment be abolished.

 

[GEddie]

I’m confused as to how much I should support the death penalty (let alone if I should support it at all). I believe that I’ve read the standard Church teaching is that the death penalty should only be used as last resort to protect society, but that it’s otherwise permissible for Catholics to support capital punishment within reasonable limits or to not support it at all. So, in relation to capital punishment, where does life for a life stand? Specifically I’m speaking about Genesis 9:6, where the death penalty is required for murder (and I distinguish this from the same command in Exodus, which would only be directed at the Israelites, while the command in Genesis is for all mankind). Christ told us to turn the other cheek and forgive, but he also said that not one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law. So what is your opinion on this? Should we execute every person who has been proven guilty of murder, should we only do so if they are a danger to the community, or should capital punishment be abolished.

Whooh, this is a hot-button issue.

While I, for one, believe that killing as punishment should be left in the past, other Catholics will teach otherwise. There is room for disagreement on this issue.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Ender]

I’m confused as to how much I should support the death penalty (let alone if I should support it at all).

You are free to chose your position on this one.

I believe that I’ve read the standard Church teaching is that the death penalty should only be used as last resort to protect society…

This is the position expressed in the catechism (2267).

… but that it’s otherwise permissible for Catholics to support capital punishment within reasonable limits or to not support it at all.

The church has throughout her entire history recognized the right of states to employ it.

So, in relation to capital punishment, where does life for a life stand? Specifically I’m speaking about Genesis 9:6, where the death penalty is required for murder (and I distinguish this from the same command in Exodus, which would only be directed at the Israelites, while the command in Genesis is for all mankind).

Gn 9:6 is the passage the church cites as the basis for her position on capital punishment. That does not mean the punishment is required in all cases. The church has also always recognized there may be exceptions to the general rule.

Christ told us to turn the other cheek and forgive…

Forgiveness is the obligation of the individual but punishment is the duty of the state.

… but he also said that not one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law.

Despite what is commonly believed, there is nothing in the New Testament opposed to capital punishment.

Should we execute every person who has been proven guilty of murder…

While I believe it should be a more common penalty it cannot be an automatic sentence. There can always be exceptions. Augustine asked that it not be used against those who harmed Christians, but raised no objection to its use in other cases. His objection was prudential, much as the current objections to its use appear to be prudential as well.

… should we only do so if they are a danger to the community…

There are problems with this approach, the first being that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, and of itself cannot determine what degree of punishment is appropriate.

… or should capital punishment be abolished?

As Innocent I said when addressing this question in 405 AD:*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *
Ender

 

[Illmatic15]

You are free to chose your position on this one.

So the Church officially states this?

This is the position expressed in the catechism (2267).

Is this teaching authoritative? Why bother even putting it there if it has no real authority?

Gn 9:6 is the passage the church cites as the basis for her position on capital punishment. That does not mean the punishment is required in all cases. The church has also always recognized there may be exceptions to the general rule.

Well I was wondering about this because the text clearly states that the murderer shall be put to death. However, what would be the case if someone truly repented and converted afterwards and became a changed person? Wouldn’t sparing their life go against the command found in that passage?

Despite what is commonly believed, there is nothing in the New Testament opposed to capital punishment.

I agree with that, but I’m just saying that Christians are to disavow revenge, and isn’t the main point of the death penalty to avenge the murdered individual in the form of proportional justice?

While I believe it should be a more common penalty it cannot be an automatic sentence. There can always be exceptions. Augustine asked that it not be used against those who harmed Christians, but raised no objection to its use in other cases. His objection was prudential, much as the current objections to its use appear to be prudential as well.

I guess what Augustine believed answers my question above about Christians and vengeance

There are problems with this approach, the first being that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment, and of itself cannot determine what degree of punishment is appropriate.

I agree, but the Church seems to be in agreement with the last resort approach.

As Innocent I said when addressing this question in 405 AD:*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *
Ender

This wasn’t the only view though:
“To witness a man’s execution, regardless of the justice of his prosecution, is forbidden by the moral law of Christ, for to assist at the killing of a man is almost the same as killing him.” (Clement of Rome)
And,… to watch a man being killed is practically equivalent to taking life " (Justin Martyr)

Peace

 

[Ender]

So the Church officially states this?

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

Is this teaching authoritative? Why bother even putting it there if it has no real authority?

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles)

*Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L.)

Well I was wondering about this because the text clearly states that the murderer shall be put to death. However, what would be the case if someone truly repented and converted afterwards and became a changed person? Wouldn’t sparing their life go against the command found in that passage?

It is not an absolute rule but a general rule; the church has always allowed exceptions.Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death. (Aquinas)

I agree with that, but I’m just saying that Christians are to disavow revenge, and isn’t the main point of the death penalty to avenge the murdered individual in the form of proportional justice?

The individual is forbidden to exact revenge but the state is obligated to do so since they have the obligation to punish crimes.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)

*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)

I agree, but the Church seems to be in agreement with the last resort approach.

This is a prudential restriction, not a moral one. The primary objective of punishment is not protection. Security cannot determine what punishment is just.

This wasn’t the only view though…

*Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment *(Cardinal Dulles)

Ender

 

[ignatius777]

I’m confused as to how much I should support the death penalty (let alone if I should support it at all). I believe that I’ve read the standard Church teaching is that the death penalty should only be used as last resort to protect society, but that it’s otherwise permissible for Catholics to support capital punishment within reasonable limits or to not support it at all. So, in relation to capital punishment, where does life for a life stand? Specifically I’m speaking about Genesis 9:6, where the death penalty is required for murder (and I distinguish this from the same command in Exodus, which would only be directed at the Israelites, while the command in Genesis is for all mankind). Christ told us to turn the other cheek and forgive, but he also said that not one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law. So what is your opinion on this? Should we execute every person who has been proven guilty of murder, should we only do so if they are a danger to the community, or should capital punishment be abolished.

I was a proponent of the death penalty but have since changed my mind and my heart most especially. I realized one day that there is an irreconcilable contraction between being pro-life and being pro death penalty. I claimed every life was special that’s why I opposed abortion but then I was determining which lives were special if I was pro death penalty. It’s not my job or my place to decide which lives are special and worthy of preserving and which aren’t. EVERY life is special to God even if every life isn’t special to me.

 

[Ender]

I was a proponent of the death penalty but have since changed my mind and my heart most especially. I realized one day that there is an irreconcilable contraction between being pro-life and being pro death penalty. I claimed every life was special that’s why I opposed abortion but then I was determining which lives were special if I was pro death penalty. It’s not my job or my place to decide which lives are special and worthy of preserving and which aren’t. EVERY life is special to God even if every life isn’t special to me.

How do you reconcile your new position with what the church traditionally taught, which was that capital punishment was an acceptable punishment for some crimes? Does your pro-life position mean killing in self defense and war is also wrong?

Ender

 

[ignatius777]

How do you reconcile your new position with what the church traditionally taught, which was that capital punishment was an acceptable punishment for some crimes? Does your pro-life position mean killing in self defense and war is also wrong?

Ender

First I dont think I need to reconcile anything as my point of view doesnt contradict the churches teaching. As for self defense its still wrong to kill but justified if ones life is in danger. And war has combatants whose job it is to defend their country. Still each life is special.

 

[Ender]

First I dont think I need to reconcile anything as my point of view doesn’t contradict the churches teaching.

You said you believe there is “an irreconcilable contradiction between being pro-life and being pro death penalty.” The church clearly sees no such contradiction since she is obviously pro-life and has acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment for millennia. It seems your belief that there is a contradiction between the two contradicts the church’s acceptance of both. I recognize that there are valid reasons to oppose capital punishment; I just don’t accept that there is anything contradictory about supporting capital punishment and simultaneously being pro-life. You admit two exceptions when life may be taken - self defense and war. The church recognizes three such exceptions…she includes capital punishment in that category.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken: *
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)
Ender

 

[ignatius777]

You said you believe there is “an irreconcilable contradiction between being pro-life and being pro death penalty.” The church clearly sees no such contradiction since she is obviously pro-life and has acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment for millennia. It seems your belief that there is a contradiction between the two contradicts the church’s acceptance of both. I recognize that there are valid reasons to oppose capital punishment; I just don’t accept that there is anything contradictory about supporting capital punishment and simultaneously being pro-life. You admit two exceptions when life may be taken - self defense and war. The church recognizes three such exceptions…she includes capital punishment in that category.Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken: *
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… (Baltimore Catechism)
Ender

I meant the contradiction was a personal one. You fare free to accept or deny anything you like. As I stated previously I do not believe my way of thinking about this conflicts with what the church teaches. It seems to me you are working very hard to verify that your belief in capital punishment is accepted by the church. I have no quarrel with that and never meant to make you feel like you had to justify your views to me. I was merely sharing the personal change that took place within me.

 

[Ender]

It seems to me you are working very hard to verify that your belief in capital punishment is accepted by the church.

My objective is to clarify what church teaching on this subject really is.

Ender

 

[mikekle]

"Forgiveness is the obligation of the individual but punishment is the duty of the state."

I dont understand why that if we as individuals are supposed to forgive and turn the other cheek, why should ‘the state’ be exempt from this? Imo, they should also forgive and turn the other cheek.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I’m confused as to how much I should support the death penalty (let alone if I should support it at all). I believe that I’ve read the standard Church teaching is that the death penalty should only be used as last resort to protect society, but that it’s otherwise permissible for Catholics to support capital punishment within reasonable limits or to not support it at all. So, in relation to capital punishment, where does life for a life stand? Specifically I’m speaking about Genesis 9:6, where the death penalty is required for murder (and I distinguish this from the same command in Exodus, which would only be directed at the Israelites, while the command in Genesis is for all mankind). Christ told us to turn the other cheek and forgive, but he also said that not one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law. So what is your opinion on this? Should we execute every person who has been proven guilty of murder, should we only do so if they are a danger to the community, or should capital punishment be abolished.

I have thought about this too a few times for myself and here is what I concluded with.

I do not think the death penalty should be done to everyone who is guilty of murder. Christ came to show us love and mercy (aside from saving us, passion, ect). He wants us to exercise what we have learned from Him in our lives everyday. There is a chance for these people to change their ways, feel and show regret, and even come to Christ. Just look at St. Paul for example. Locking people up rather than killing them can be fruitful.

So I would say in most cases I would not do the death penalty and it should be left to discretion of the law of the land.
(one reason why it is so important to always pray for those in power, even if you do not like them. and your country -and others-)
I think the only time death penalty should be carried out is when this person refuses to change his ways and is hurting the people around him in prison such as cell mates and/or guards. At this point he obviously made up his mind to evil. There is no point in putting others at risk like that when there is not going to be any positive fruit.

 

[ignatius777]

My objective is to clarify what church teaching on this subject really is.

Ender

Fair enough. Here is in part what the church teaches in regards to the death penalty

**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. (2306)

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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent.”68**

 

[Ender]

"Forgiveness is the obligation of the individual but punishment is the duty of the state."

I dont understand why that if we as individuals are supposed to forgive and turn the other cheek, why should ‘the state’ be exempt from this? Imo, they should also forgive and turn the other cheek.

It is a matter of justice. *A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium *(Pius XII)
Also, it is not true that forgiveness cancels out punishment, so forgiving a person for his fault does not mean his punishment should be wiped away, and the obligation to punish belongs to the state.*Legitimate public authority has the right and **duty **to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
We are all familiar with the passage “Vengeance is mine, I will repay”, and that is often understood to mean that since it is forbidden to us it is always wrong, but it can hardly be wrong if God himself engages in it. Vengeance simply means “the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” (Aquinas)

As I said, it is justice that demands sinners be punished.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Fair enough. Here is in part what the church teaches in regards to the death penalty …**2267… **

Yes, 2267 is part of what the church teaches, but the church’s teaching on this subject did not start in 1997 with the publication of the second version of the new catechism, and there is really nothing in what she taught before that to support it. My understanding of that section is that of Cardinal Dulles:*But as I understand it, the Magisterium is saying that although the biblical and traditional doctrine was sound in principle, there are special circumstances in our own day that make the application of the death penalty undesirable.
*That is, the doctrine remains unchanged: states have the right to apply capital punishment for severe crimes. The opposition to its use today is practical, not moral.

Ender

 

[ignatius777]

Yes, 2267 is part of what the church teaches, but the church’s teaching on this subject did not start in 1997 with the publication of the second version of the new catechism, and there is really nothing in what she taught before that to support it. My understanding of that section is that of Cardinal Dulles:*But as I understand it, the Magisterium is saying that although the biblical and traditional doctrine was sound in principle, there are special circumstances in our own day that make the application of the death penalty undesirable.
*That is, the doctrine remains unchanged: states have the right to apply capital punishment for severe crimes. The opposition to its use today is practical, not moral.

Ender

While it may not have started in 1997 that IS the teaching of the catholic church today. Again my views and the views of the church are not in conflict.

 

[shockerfan]

Yes, 2267 is part of what the church teaches, but the church’s teaching on this subject did not start in 1997 with the publication of the second version of the new catechism, and there is really nothing in what she taught before that to support it. My understanding of that section is that of Cardinal Dulles:*But as I understand it, the Magisterium is saying that although the biblical and traditional doctrine was sound in principle, there are special circumstances in our own day that make the application of the death penalty undesirable.
*That is, the doctrine remains unchanged: states have the right to apply capital punishment for severe crimes. The opposition to its use today is practical, not moral.

Ender

The Church’s teaching has not changed, per se, but it has developed. The Church teaches we have a right to defend ourselves, either individually or as a group, to neutralize an attacker. We have to use force commensurate with the threat (see CCC 2264). JP2 raised the bar on the death penalty by basically saying most threats can be neutralized given the state’s current abilities with incarceration.
For example: the teaching as I understand it would be that the death penalty for Timothy McVeigh would not be necessary, since he was a lone wolf threat, and imprisonment would have both stopped his threat, and given him the opportunity for redemption. The vast majority of people on death row today do not need to be put to death, and in many cases, if they were not poor, they could have hired an expensive lawyer to get them out of their predicament…ie. the system is not fair in its application of the death penalty.
One of the few examples I can come up with today for a moral application of the death penalty would be for a drug lord. A person, who from his prison cell, can direct the murder of people inside and outside the prison, could justly be put to death to remove the threat. I also recently saw a documentary on a leader of the Aryan Nation gang in a California prison, who, even though he was in prison for life, was able to direct the murder of people in and out of the prison. The death penalty would be just in that example as well, IMHO.

 

[Ender]

While it may not have started in 1997 that IS the teaching of the catholic church today.

The teaching (doctrine) of the church has not changed. The teaching (prudential judgment) of her recent popes is that it ought not be used.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church’s teaching has not changed, per se, but it has developed. The Church teaches we have a right to defend ourselves, either individually or as a group, to neutralize an attacker.

Capital punishment is not justified based on the concept of self defense. Rather it is justified on the concept of justice.

Ender