Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[SoCalRC]

If you believe the answer to both of these is “no”, then I think we are pretty close in principle. Death can not be applied merely because is stops other killings. It has to be the way we reasonable believe is required, not just an effective way.

FWIW, JPII tied this to a coherent whole in one of his books. It helps understand our teaching on abortion being prohibited even to save the life of the mother.

It also is worth noting that early Christianity appears to have taken this principle very seriously. After several centuries, Augustine still took it as an absolute given that we, as individuals, were prohibited from resisting evil doers physically - even as he developed the beginnings of our Just War tradition. In other words, early Christians felt strongly that it was wrong to fight or kill, even in the immediate case of self defense. Just war was argued to be permissible because it entailed going to the justified defense of others.

 

[SoCalRC]

Hey, all I can say on this is that if it weren’t for the Death Penalty there is no way that any of us could be saved. Jesus was killed via the Death Penalty for the eternal benefit of all our souls. Since Jesus obviously is not against the Death Penalty, why should I be?

For some Christian faiths, your theological reasoning is sound. However, we Catholics believe also in the relevance of Christ’s earthly ministry (note there are specific instructions on what we must do to be saved in the Gospels), and in the apostilic nature of our Church.

However, your assertion that virtually no innocents are executed appears to be at odds with demonstrable reality. The ABA just completed a multi state survey, there are many other studies as well.

 

[1Samuel8]

1Samuel8;2926872:

I am just curious: who should throw the first stone?

The properly constituted government authorities. They are the ones who are charged with administering God’s wrath on evil-doers, according to Romans 13.

In that case, nobody should throw the first stone.

The Catechism provides further detail:

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.

PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE

I do not believe it is Catholic to have blind obedience to “The properly constituted government authorities.” as you label them. I will be so bold as to say that ANY government authority that does not follow Catholic doctrine should be denied its moral legitimacy.

 

[Ender]

So the death penalty is not “prohibited” only if it is not working well. It is “allowed” only if it is absolutely necessary. The default switch is set the other way, which makes a big difference. The big difference is that it does not matter if it works unless it is the only thing that will work.

When it comes time to sentence a felon there are basically two options: incarceration or execution. I understand your distinction - if incarceration works then we cannot execute regardless of whether execution would also work.

You also need to realize that if incarcerating the violent proves insufficient to protect society then the same criterion that is used today to prohibit executions would serve to justify executing persons for even lesser offenses. And that this could not be objected to on moral grounds as the use of capital punishment (given “protection of society” as the only criterion) is now only a practical question, not a moral one.

The Church teaches that punishment is not primarily about protecting society and is in fact only justified when it meets the requirements of justice. No argument about punishment that does not answer the needs of justice can be considered valid … and in 2267 justice is ignored. - the only criterion applied by 2267 is the protection of society

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I do not believe it is Catholic to have blind obedience to “The properly constituted government authorities.” as you label them. I will be so bold as to say that ANY government authority that does not follow Catholic doctrine should be denied its moral legitimacy.

The quote you gave says government derives its authority from eternal law, not catholic doctrine. Obviously the Roman government in Paul’s time did not follow Catholic doctrine, but did have laws based in eternal moral law. Moral law can include, and has included, execution.

 

[1Samuel8]

The quote you gave says government derives its authority from eternal law, not catholic doctrine. Obviously the Roman government in Paul’s time did not follow Catholic doctrine, but did have laws based in eternal moral law. Moral law can include, and has included, execution.

I am not so convinced that the Roman government nor many modern governments have laws based on eternal moral law.

When it comes time to sentence a felon there are basically two options: incarceration or execution.

Wrong. There is a third option: ostracization / banishment from society.

 

[melensdad]

Wrong. There is a third option: ostracization / banishment from society.

I believe that is how Australia was populated.

But it is no longer practical. We have no where on earth for banishment, except perhaps the polar ice caps. That would probably be a death sentence in any practical way.

 

[fix]

I am not so convinced that the Roman government nor many modern governments have laws based on eternal moral law.

Being unconvinced is no proof. The authority of the government to govern comes from God and we know this from Church teaching. That there may be immoral laws does not mean the government is completely unjust.

Take the USA as an example. That abortion is allowed is gravely unjust, but does that mean one should conclude all laws are wrong here? Does that mean I may disregard traffic laws or not pay taxes to support fire departments, etc.

 

[pnewton]

I am not so convinced that the Roman government nor many modern governments have laws based on eternal moral law. .

Paul was convinced that their authority came from God. That is what he wrote in Romans. If they prohibited theft or murder, then there was at least some laws based on the moral law. The Catechism you quoted stateds “A human law” referring to a specific law. There is no justification to generalizing that every law must be grounded in moral law. Just that the ones that do are the ones that are just laws. Therefore, a government doesn’t have to be a Catholic theocracy to still have just laws.

 

[Other_Eric]

Paul was convinced that their authority came from God. That is what he wrote in Romans. If they prohibited theft or murder, then there was at least some laws based on the moral law. The Catechism you quoted stateds “A human law” referring to a specific law. There is no justification to generalizing that every law must be grounded in moral law. Just that the ones that do are the ones that are just laws. Therefore, a government doesn’t have to be a Catholic theocracy to still have just laws.

Isn’t it deeply problematic to argue that a government may compose a law that the masses are morally bound to follow and yet acknowledge that this same law is divorced entirely from the Natural Law or normative notions of justice? Would this not mean that government has been granted the freedom by God to act arbitrarily? Carried to the extreme, this might even imply that government has been granted the authority to redefine morality according to its own tastes. It seems that this alone provides ample justification for generalizing that every legitimate law must, at some level, be grounded in the moral law lest one believe that God has left it to the fallen wisdom of men to determine the parameters of true human freedom.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

In as much as the judgement by JPII that the so-called civilised goverment of the US is sufficiently advanced as to not require the death penalty, is now seen to be prudential, then likewise the judgement of Paul on the divinity of the authorisation of the Roman government of the day, and therefore all other governments, is also prudential.
Is anyone going to say that Hitler’s Reich had the authority of G_d to send Jews to perdition?
No, it is a cop-out.
Like the UN, the Church knows what is immoral, but keeps schtumm. No, worse, sometimes she even defends the evil.

 

[RomanCrusader]

I support the death penalty, as has the Catholic Church for the vast majority of its existence.

 

[Ender]

In as much as the judgement by JPII that the so-called civilised goverment of the US is sufficiently advanced as to not require the death penalty, is now seen to be prudential, then likewise the judgement of Paul on the divinity of the authorisation of the Roman government of the day, and therefore all other governments, is also prudential.

JPII was entitled to his opinions. As pope he was also entitled to decree things infallibly - such as his statement that women cannot be ordained. I think the Church has been pretty clear that Paul’s teaching that rulers receive their authority from God was more than his personal opinion. The Church has always taught this.

Is anyone going to say that Hitler’s Reich had the authority of G_d to send Jews to perdition? No, it is a cop-out.

Well, would you say that Pilate had the authority of God to crucify Christ? Didn’t Christ say that that was exactly where his authority came from? Or was that just his personal opinion?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Isn’t it deeply problematic to argue that a government may compose a law that the masses are morally bound to follow and yet acknowledge that this same law is divorced entirely from the Natural Law or normative notions of justice?

Yes it would be, but I do not think anyone is suggesting that it wouldn’t be.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

So the death penalty is not “prohibited” only if it is not working well. It is “allowed” only if it is absolutely necessary. The default switch is set the other way, which makes a big difference. The big difference is that it does not matter if it works unless it is the only thing that will work.

So, what do we do with the centuries of Church teaching clearly covered by the “ordinary” infallibility of the Church that repeatedly place the responsibility and authority to protect society from the criminal elements in the hands of the State (civil government) - specifically including the right to exact the death penalty for the “common good” (not “when that is the only thing that will work”)? Your position seems to suggest that this prior teaching should be set aside when trying to reconcile it to JP II’s meaning results in nonsense, where it seems that what should be set aside are the statements not reconcilable with the immutable teachings of the Church…

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

JPII was entitled to his opinions. As pope he was also entitled to decree things infallibly - such as his statement that women cannot be ordained. I think the Church has been pretty clear that Paul’s teaching that rulers receive their authority from God was more than his personal opinion. The Church has always taught this.

This is the doctrine of ‘Divine Right’.
No-one truely pays this doctrine more than ‘lip-service’.

Well, would you say that Pilate had the authority of God to crucify Christ? Didn’t Christ say that that was exactly where his authority came from? Or was that just his personal opinion?

Ender

You misread the context.
Remember the centurion who came to Christ to save his boy.
He said his authority came from above, but he clearly was refering to superior authority of rank.
What makes you believe that Our Lord was using a different context?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Yes it would be, but I do not think anyone is suggesting that it wouldn’t be.

In the UK, the doctrine of ‘Divine Right’ fell with Charlie’s head.
I do not believe anyone honestly tries to defend this doctrine to the limit.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

So, what do we do with the centuries of Church teaching clearly covered by the “ordinary” infallibility of the Church that repeatedly place the responsibility and authority to protect society from the criminal elements in the hands of the State (civil government) - specifically including the right to exact the death penalty for the “common good” (not “when that is the only thing that will work”)? Your position seems to suggest that this prior teaching should be set aside when trying to reconcile it to JP II’s meaning results in nonsense, where it seems that what should be set aside are the statements not reconcilable with the immutable teachings of the Church…

You have to remember that much of this teaching is framed in the context of ‘mores Romana’.
These times and ways have passed.
The context is changed.
Do we still chop off hands?
Do we still burn witches?
Are we civilized?
Or do we want to have a Christian version of Shariah law?

 

[pnewton]

In the UK, the doctrine of ‘Divine Right’ fell with Charlie’s head.
I do not believe anyone honestly tries to defend this doctrine to the limit.

Of course not. Again, no one is suggesting this either. Boy this place is getting more full of strawmen than a Halloween carnival.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Of course not. Again, no one is suggesting this either. Boy this place is getting more full of strawmen than a Halloween carnival.

The Divine Right of Kings to rule is a simple extension of the theory that governments are licenced by G_d to bring wrath on to evil-doers.
One falls with the other.