E
estesbob
Guest
Everyone must hold to the idea that the State may employ the death penalty-that does not mean we to individually have to support it.
- Status
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
But the Catholic church is AGAINST the death penalty… or so I thought??
E
estesbob
Guest
No it is not. It had always allowed for it-In fact up untilthe early 60s it was on the books in the vatican.
E
Ender
Guest
It is my belief, based on the comments of (among others) Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB, that 2267 is a prudential opinion.
Ender
C
CMatt25
Guest
So a Catholic adhering most faithfully to all teaching can not support a general use of the death penalty. They only can in nearly nonexistent circumstances, if at all.
That seems to me a huge difference from those politically conservative Catholics who profess complete faithfulness, yet may on political grounds support the death penalty it seems in more cases than very rarely, nearly non-existent cases.
C
CMatt25
Guest
:clapping:The term “Cafeteria Catholic” has become so cliche, milked to death, and the very arrogant “I’m following ALL the rules and you’re not! I’m a real Catholic but you’re a phony poser!” speech really gets OLD…It sounds like something the Pharisees of their day would love to add to their lexicon…
M
mlund
Guest
The fact of the matter is any assessment of what a government’s justice system is capable of doing is a Prudential Judgment, not an infallible teaching on Faith and Morals. It is an assessment grounded in the understanding of bureaucracy, criminology, economics, and political science - not Theology and Morality. As it was already illustrated in the first page of this thread, the use of prisons in modern nations has actually failed to provide safety from incarcerated capital offenders - merely transferred the burden of victimization to an underclass of prisoners, guards, and the like. This is a hard reality many have not come to grips with.
It may not, in fact, be that incarceration is a viable alternative to execution. But rather than turning to execution as the only solution, we might consider lesser punishments visited on the body. If a man uses his hands to murder we should not throw him in jail where he may use his hands to kill other inmates or guards. However, we do not need to take away his life and his opportunity for repentance either. Rather, we should look for an alternative to death than renders him harmless in a way mere incarceration fails to do.
Solitary confinement is largely impractical for extended periods and has proven to be mentally debilitating. While it provides adequate protection against the prisoner attempting more rapes or murders the psychological damage it inflicts is undesirable.
What if we were to remove or paralyze the murder’s hands (perhaps just his thumbs?) and then incarcerate him? Such a course of action almost completely removes his means to threaten lethal harm to another but does not take his life or his mental faculties. (Seriously, reflect for a moment on how important the use of your thumbs really is when it comes to complex actions like tying a knot, let alone using a tool, wielding a weapon, or performing a lethal unarmed attack). While cutting off hands for thievery or most violent felonies strikes me as barbaric I fail to see how such a punishment would be “cruel and unusual” compared with killing a man, putting him into sanity-destroying solitary confinement, or locking him in a gulag of rape and murder.
Seriously, if you were ever wrongfully convicted of murder which would you rather be condemned to?
It may not, in fact, be that incarceration is a viable alternative to execution. But rather than turning to execution as the only solution, we might consider lesser punishments visited on the body. If a man uses his hands to murder we should not throw him in jail where he may use his hands to kill other inmates or guards. However, we do not need to take away his life and his opportunity for repentance either. Rather, we should look for an alternative to death than renders him harmless in a way mere incarceration fails to do.
Solitary confinement is largely impractical for extended periods and has proven to be mentally debilitating. While it provides adequate protection against the prisoner attempting more rapes or murders the psychological damage it inflicts is undesirable.
What if we were to remove or paralyze the murder’s hands (perhaps just his thumbs?) and then incarcerate him? Such a course of action almost completely removes his means to threaten lethal harm to another but does not take his life or his mental faculties. (Seriously, reflect for a moment on how important the use of your thumbs really is when it comes to complex actions like tying a knot, let alone using a tool, wielding a weapon, or performing a lethal unarmed attack). While cutting off hands for thievery or most violent felonies strikes me as barbaric I fail to see how such a punishment would be “cruel and unusual” compared with killing a man, putting him into sanity-destroying solitary confinement, or locking him in a gulag of rape and murder.
Seriously, if you were ever wrongfully convicted of murder which would you rather be condemned to?
- Marty Lund
J
JimG
Guest
I agree that the Church’s assessment of what a governmental justice system is capable of doing is a prudential judgment, not an infallible teaching. The Church has not absolutely prohibited the use of the death penalty, as it has prohibited abortion.
A capital murder case is the most expensive type of prosecution from every aspect, including the penalty. Yesterday in my state, was the 10th anniversary of the conviction of several murderers convicted of quadruple murders. The anniversary was noted in the newspapers. They are years away from actual execution, if that should actually occur. The appeals process may take yet another decade or so. It is only because one intended victim managed to survive that the perpetrators were caught and convicted.
It would assuredly have been less expensive to prosecute for 1st degree murder rather than capital murder, but lifetime incarceration and protection of society would not thereby have been ensured. The jury elected the death penalty. As far as I know, the defense lawyers continue to be paid by the taxpayers throughout the appeals process.
I know of another case in which a parishioner’s daughter, along with several others, was murdered, and the person who committed the crime was caught and convicted. That was apparently not a capital murder case; the person received four life sentences to be served consecutively. So far, that prisoner has come up for parole hearings four times, and will come up for parole again. The protection of society is not ensured.
E
Ender
Guest
Despite what it says, not only is it not doctrine it’s not even correct. The traditional teaching of the Church never made the use of capital punishment dependent on whether it was needed to protect the public. Protection is a valid objective of punishment, it’s just that the Church never limited capital punishment to whether it was necessary to achieve that goal. Protection after all is only a secondary objective and it is the primary objective - retribution - that must be achieved for the punishment to be considered just.
Yes, well this is clearly an opinion, not doctrine, and we have no obligation to assent to it, which is a good thing as there is every reason to believe that this statement isn’t correct either.
This is incorrect. As Cardinal Ratzinger said in 2004: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.”
Ender
C
CMatt25
Guest
I was just quoting CCC saying it’s teaching. But I suppose if CCC is incorrect.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Well said. Thank you.
E
Ender
Guest
Well there is simply no doubt that the first part of 2267 is factually incorrect.
*The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(2267)
As Kevin L. Flannery S.J. (Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome) points out, this claim is incorrect.
The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.
Beyond that, the entire justifying position of 2267 appears based on the concept of self-defense and the principle of double effect, and that appears to be incorrect as well.
The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context.
But—and here we return to the interpretive errors of the Catechism —in the case of capital punishment, not even such force is required.
The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas cannot apply to them.
Ender
E
estesbob
Guest
Correct .The problem is that many Catholics try and make a moral equivalency between the death penalty and abortion. The reason is transparent-they are trying to rationalize supporting a politician who supports abortion under the guise that his oppoent supports the death penalty and accordingly there is no real difference between the two. It appears that is also the premise of the article that started this thread.
Abortion is an intrinisic evil and can never be supported either directly or indirectly. On the the hand the Church has always allowed for the used of the death penalty and has made it clear a Catholic can support it.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
To oppose the death penalty per se would be to contradict Holy Scripture. How can a Catholic hold such a position? If people find it unfortunate and other means to be preferred when and where they are viable… well, that’s nothing special. Does anyone disagree?
A
Alan55
Guest
The modern Church’s opposition to the death penalty does not need to be dogmatic, i.e., defined infallibly, to be binding on Catholics. It also does not need to have been the consistent teaching of the Church from time immemorial to be binding on Catholics. Most Church teaching is non-dogmatic. Nonetheless, it can be authoritative even without being a dogma of the Church. Such teaching requires the “religious submission of the intellect and will.”
This conversation reminds me of those who hate the teaching of Vatican II and who trumpet the fact that none of the documents of Vatican II are dogmatic, i.e., infallible, then go ahead to dismiss various teachings of an ecumenical council of the Church, duly presided over by not one but two popes, as “merely prudential.”
The “cafeteria Catholic” label properly applies to anyone who rejects Church teaching. As others have said, conservative/traditionalist Catholics have used the label against any who they deem too liberal for their tastes. That door swings both ways.
This conversation reminds me of those who hate the teaching of Vatican II and who trumpet the fact that none of the documents of Vatican II are dogmatic, i.e., infallible, then go ahead to dismiss various teachings of an ecumenical council of the Church, duly presided over by not one but two popes, as “merely prudential.”
The “cafeteria Catholic” label properly applies to anyone who rejects Church teaching. As others have said, conservative/traditionalist Catholics have used the label against any who they deem too liberal for their tastes. That door swings both ways.
E
estesbob
Guest
Supporitng the Death Penalty is not a rejection of Church Teaching. Pope Benedict specifically said that a Catholic could, in good conscience, support the death penalty. It appears like we are seeing more moral relatavism from those Catholics trying to rationalize their support of pro-abortion politicians
E
Ender
Guest
Not exactly. Infallible teachings require “the obedience of faith” and ordinary teachings require “religious assent”, but prudential teachings do not require any assent and To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles) The question regarding 2267 is whether or not it is prudential; answering that question determines the level of assent it demands.
Ender
H
Holly3278
Guest
Nice site! I have been against the death penalty for a long time so it is nice to see that there is a site out there that explains why Catholics are against the death penalty in most cases! 
C
CMatt25
Guest
As I’ve stated previously, I suppose whether one might disagree or not, perhaps could depend on one’s belief of what Christ meant when He said thou shalt not kill and you have heard it was said an eye for eye BUT.
Or by how one chooses to define the words, “practically nonexistent”, as to degree of their support.
In any case may God bless you and each of us on our walks with Him. Peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well I suppose. Though what I’m hearing is even those who consider themselves among the most faithful and who choose to support the death penalty even in more cases, can do so because the Catholic Church Catechism is incorrect.Nice site! I have been against the death penalty for a long time so it is nice to see that there is a site out there that explains why Catholics are against the death penalty in most cases!
- Status