Am I a dissenter if I reject Catholic teaching on the Death Penalty?

[Dan_Daly]

The pope has recently condemned the death penalty and multiple Catholics including pro life organizations and Bishops have condemned it…

Personally I am opposed to both capital punishment and prisons…

Do you have a source for the claimed papal condemnation?

Pax Christi

 

[Ender]

Do you have a source for the claimed papal condemnation?

I think there is little doubt that both JPII and BXVI personally opposed the use of capital punishment. That said, there is also little doubt that the Church has no moral objection to its use - she has always supported the right of a state to employ it, and while we have a moral obligation to accept the doctrines of the Church we have no such obligation to accept the opinions of the clergy, not even of popes.

Ender

 

[pismopal]

Respectfully disagree. Most murders are crimes of passion or in felony murder where the intent was never to commit murder at all.

It’s been proven that the DP has not acted as a deterrent. In fact, NY has not had a viable DP since 1965. We made an attempt in 2005 but that was struck down as unconstitutional and only 5 people were sentenced to death and never executed in that short time the supposed DP was in effect.

However, in 1990, the murder rate in NYC was 2245 murders. – just NYC. This year the number is down to just around 500.

States Without the Death Penalty Have Consistently Lower Murder Rates

As a retired police supervisor I completely disagree with your idea that most murders are “crimes of passion”. Some are but certainly not most. There is no possible way that it has or can be, proven that the death penalty is not a deterent to murder and deterence is not the goal anyway. One thing we know for certain, some killers go to prison and while awaiting sentence of death or while serving a prison sentence, they kill again, sometimes more than once. One issue in this casual discussion of punishment and crime is the fact that no one ever executed in prison has been known to kill anyone else.

 

[pismopal]

No one is saying punishment goes away… Instead of prisons it will be Psychiatric hospitals

Crime is a public health problem… Punishment and rehabilitation are carried out by forensic psychiatrists… Not inhumane prison guards

I think they should be taken care of in nice loving homes supervised by people like you and those inhumane terrible prison guards should occupy the old cells. Great idea…great idea!

 

[Nate13]

Unfortunately there is nothing whatever plainly said in that section of the catechism. What 2266 says is: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *What “redressing the disorder” means has been left undefined, although the USCCB pretty clearly explained it in a 1980 document:

*The third justifying purpose for punishment is retribution or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.
*
It is the “order of justice” which must be restored … and the restoration of that order of justice is retribution. Redress doesn’t include retribution, it is retribution.

Ender

Exactly so we are in agreement… And yes it does include more that just retribution. If a thief went to a jewelry store and stole some diamonds, and then was caught part of “redress” is that the diamonds are returned to the store.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, RCIA4,

As a Registered Nurse with in-patient psychiatric hospital experience, I submit that your proposal is abusive to both offender (who may be quite sane but did an evil deed) and to patients with recognized psychiatric disabilities (who may be preyed upon by these criminal offenders). While it is true that patients with actual mental health disorders commit crimes - some quite serious, like the attempted murder of Rep. Giffords about a year ago (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting) the substitution for time away from society for a sane offender to be replaced by imprisonment in a psychiatric hospital is a misapplication of scarce health care resources. The shooter in this case, does need help for mental health issues - and society also needs to be safe from such murderous behavior.

While there may be some advantages to the Netherlands dealing with convicted prisoners in a particular manner, trying to directly apply ‘Volkswagon’ engine technology to the engines of an naval aircraft carrier will not work. Jail has never (at least in the US) been considered as a substitute for ‘get away from it all vacation’ If there was ever an idea about not doing the crime so you did not have to spend the time … well … this is it!

Back to the original topic - in my opinion there needs to be a real attitude adjustment about killing people as a form of punishment for convicted crime. Look at Timothy McVeigh (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh_Execution) - he wanted a ‘state-assisted suicide’ and he got it. The survivors were given no relief at his death, no one really got what they wanted - except McVeigh. Truly, executing him was just playing into his hands - and a real error by glorifying his character. If you want a real issue on rejecting the death penalty - look to McVeigh’s example. Nothing good came of it. Had he been sentenced to 168 life terms in prison - this would have more to the point.

God bless

God bless

No one is saying punishment goes away… Instead of prisons it will be Psychiatric hospitals

Crime is a public health problem… Punishment and rehabilitation are carried out by forensic psychiatrists… Not inhumane prison guards

 

[Dan_Daly]

I think there is little doubt that both JPII and BXVI personally opposed the use of capital punishment. That said, there is also little doubt that the Church has no moral objection to its use - she has always supported the right of a state to employ it, and while we have a moral obligation to accept the doctrines of the Church we have no such obligation to accept the opinions of the clergy, not even of popes.

Ender

If there is little doubt, then it should be easy to find a quote in which they universally condemn it. From what I recall, the statements both men have made have been limited to certain cultural circumstances- “the west” for example and have not extended to the 3rd world.

As you say, though, personal opposition is different than official condemnation. My point is that, even that personal opposition was not absolute or universal.

Pax Christi

 

[Ender]

Back to the original topic - in my opinion there needs to be a real attitude adjustment about killing people as a form of punishment for convicted crime.

That attitude adjustment has happened. Prior to about 1960 all the world accepted the justness of capital punishment. It is after all, church doctrine.

If you want a real issue on rejecting the death penalty - look to McVeigh’s example. Nothing good came of it. Had he been sentenced to 168 life terms in prison - this would have more to the point.

I’m not sure of the point you’re making here: are you suggesting that McVeigh should have been given a prison sentence because that would have been worse than executing him? As far as “nothing good” coming of his execution, it isn’t clear what good you would expect to achieve. From my perspective he received the just punishment for his crime and justice is not merely good but is an obligation of the state.

Ender

 

[AHapka]

Jesus didn’t condem anyone to capital punishment so neither should would.

God Himself told humanity that if you sin, you will die. The wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve were told point blank that if they ate of the fruit, they would die.

 

[AHapka]

I oppose the death penalty in all cases. So, I would be a dissenter.

Eh, I think it’s more nuanced than that.

I think you would be just fine saying something to the effect of “while the Church does allow for the use of the death penalty, I don’t think it needs to be used in modern society.”

If you say the death penalty is evil, that’s wrong because the Church would never formally teach an evil as allowed.

If you say that I’m personally opposed to the death penalty in all cases, because I don’t think it’s the right way to handle things, I think that’s ok.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Ender,

Yes, I would agree that there was a turning point - and the 1960’s is as good a date to give it as any within the past 50 years or so. In the history of the world, this is a relatively new idea.

Concerning the ‘good’ of McVeigh’s capital punishment sentence being carried out - there were many who supported this sentence - virtually all of the victim’s families, along with most of the country. And, yes, I was in that group - while not clamoring for his death - encouraged by the jury’s verdict, judge’s sentence and it finally being carried out. But, afterwards, I had second thoughts that were more like, “So what?” Our country was forever changed by the actions of this sane but totally wrong native-born, home-grown terrorist! Hundreds of people were killed or injured as a result of his cowardly act. And he gets to say he is the ‘master of his own fate’ and pretend he is a martyr for his self-proclaimed and absurd cause.

In my opinion, given a guilty verdict, I think we as a nation would have been better served with life in prison x 168 would be appropriate.

God bless

That attitude adjustment has happened. Prior to about 1960 all the world accepted the justness of capital punishment. It is after all, church doctrine.
I’m not sure of the point you’re making here: are you suggesting that McVeigh should have been given a prison sentence because that would have been worse than executing him? As far as “nothing good” coming of his execution, it isn’t clear what good you would expect to achieve. From my perspective he received the just punishment for his crime and justice is not merely good but is an obligation of the state.

Ender

 

[Ender]

If there is little doubt, then it should be easy to find a quote in which they universally condemn it. From what I recall, the statements both men have made have been limited to certain cultural circumstances- “the west” for example and have not extended to the 3rd world.

“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).

“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).

Ender

 

[Ender]

In my opinion, given a guilty verdict, I think we as a nation would have been better served with life in prison x 168 would be appropriate.

I disagree with you … but I think this is an “I prefer Coke to Pepsi” argument. We may freely disagree about what punishment actually serves society better and I think this is basically JPII’s position: punishments other than executions better serve modern societies. His opposition to capital punishment was practical, not moral.

Ender

 

[Dan_Daly]

“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).

“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).

Ender

Fair enough. In neither case does he actually condemn it though, which he could not do, since the Church has taught that the death penalty, when justly carried out, is actually an act of love.

The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.

Perhaps Blessed John Paul II believed that modern states were incapable of administering the punishment justly because they were so steeped in the culture of death.

Pope Benedict XVI has made it clear that it is not unCatholic to support the death penalty:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not… with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

I do agree with Blessed John Paul II that the death penalty is unnecessary. It is a punishment only appropriate for gravely evil acts, and evil is never necessary. If all men lived lives of holiness, there would indeed be no need for it.

Pax Christi

 

[Jocko_VT]

In summary the key is whether there is a reasonable alternative method by which justice can be obtained and the prevention of further crimes from the person in question is assured.

Seems to me, at least in the US, this effectively abolishes the death penalty.

 

[Nate13]

Seems to me, at least in the US, this effectively abolishes the death penalty.

I’m curious but where is the “You can’t legislate your morality!” comment in this thread?

Also my point there was semi corrected earlier in the thread. Its not just about whether an alternative is available, but rather what punishment best serves society and upholding justice. On this point good people can legitimately disagree with one another.

 

[Jocko_VT]

I’m curious but where is the “You can’t legislate your morality!” comment in this thread?

Also my point there was semi corrected earlier in the thread. Its not just about whether an alternative is available, but rather what punishment best serves society and upholding justice. On this point good people can legitimately disagree with one another.

I only read through the first page or so.

So, even if a horrific villain can be kept in prison for life, thus offering no threat to anyone, there is a justification for applying the death penalty?

 

[Nate13]

So, even if a horrific villain can be kept in prison for life, thus offering no threat to anyone, there is a justification for applying the death penalty?

Ask Ender for an explanation as to why using the death penalty as punishment serves society better and is better way of prosecuting justice than life in prison for some crimes. I do not hold a definitive position on this matter.

 

[Jocko_VT]

Ask Ender for an explanation as to why using the death penalty as punishment serves society better and is better way of prosecuting justice than life in prison for some crimes. I do not hold a definitive position on this matter.

I read through all the comments, including Ender’s. I didn’t see anything that explained away this from the Catechism:

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.

But, perhaps I put too much stock in the Catechism as a representation of Catholic teaching.

I’m still confused about the legislating morality comment. No worries, though.

 

[Nate13]

I read through all the comments, including Ender’s. I didn’t see anything that explained away this from the Catechism:

That’s why I said to ask for one. That is the point Ender just put forward.

But, perhaps I put too much stock in the Catechism as a representation of Catholic teaching.

I’m still confused about the legislating morality comment. No worries, though.

I’m sure you also read this quote from the Catechism:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

It’s never as simple as one quote.

In regards to legislating the Church’s morality, my point was in respect to this:

Seems to me, at least in the US, this effectively abolishes the death penalty.

With my statement in the context of a discussion about what the Church teaches regarding the morality of the death penalty, you took it to conclude that therefore it should be illegal in the U.S. I may be mistaken but were you not in another thread arguing that religious reasons cannot be used in determining the legality of things in a secular society? Or are you just able to see in this thread how just because an argument comes from a religious source that does not automatically preclude that it is a religious argument?

If I’m wrong in assuming you were one of the ones making such accusations before then forgive me, but my point still stands to those out there who were.